The scale on the micrographs (C) is too small to read easily.
In addition to showing DAPI and immunofluorescence images of the cells, we should really be seeing a bright-field micrograph of the cells (no fluorescence).
The colour scheme is misleading (compare 1 \(\mu\)M A18 in B vs 5 \(\mu\)M in D)
Too many comparisons in B - chartjunk
y-axes scales should be the same to make intra-panel comparisons easier
UMAP plots (B, E) are highly manipulable and clustering/placement does not necessarily reflect objective measures.
Unpleasant colour choices in (C); there is room for aesthetic improvement.
The proportion plot in (C) does not give information on absolute number, only proportion; a proportional areas plot spanning all clusters would more honestly represent the data.
Heatmap text is too small to read comfortably; is there too much data here?
The flow diagram (A) could make better use of arrows to illustrate order of steps
Text overall is too hard to read comfortably
Heatmap in (D) is missing a scale (is purple high and yellow low, or vice versa?)
Consider what is needed to convey the figure’s intended message: if it’s just that these macrophages exhibit transcriptional heterogeneity, then D is probably sufficient for that purpose - the other panels don’t add much for me
Whitespace usage could be improved - cramming (C) under the inset from (B) makes the figure feel very crowded